The Oamaru Mail. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2,1880.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1319, 2 September 1880, Page 2

The Oamaru Mail. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2,1880.

There was laid upon, the table of the House, on the 26th ult., a batch of particularly interesting correspondence on certain railway matters. It seems strange that such important documents have not before this found their way into the columns of some of our larger j contemporaries, whose Wellington correspondents are ever watchful for items of news so valuable to their readers. The correspondence we refer to opens with a memorandum warfare between Messrs. Guthrie and Larnach (contractors for railway stores) and the stores manager. It appears that a requisition was forwarded to Messrs. Guthrie and Larnach for a quantity of «olvanised iron required for the Addington "Workshops, vrkifih were in course of erection. Messrs, Guthrie and Larnach refused to supply the order, on the plea that their contract was to supply materials required for repairs, and not for j new works, and that materials required J for new works were invariably supplied by the contractors for such works. The rule- which Messrs. Guthrie and Larnach were seeking to lay down was viewed by {he stores manager and storekeeper as .one dangerous to the department. TJiey expressed their opinion to the Com-1 missioner that the material which the cGflfcjptors refused to supply should be procured elsewhere at the contractors' risk; and the stores manager wired to the Commissioner staling, " If the contractors are not compelled to : supply iron, theie will be trouble about stores ordered for Addington "Workshops from other contractors." To this the Commissioner replied, "As our contracts are for supplying working railways, and contractors probably base | their calculations upon that understanding, I do not see how we can fairly call upon them to supply construction department also. If they are ■willing, I have no objection." The stores manage? then explains to the Commissioner that, wjien tendering, Guthrie'and Larnach had had 3<s?6ss to the Christchurch store ledgers in order j to ascertain what would be required, and that up to the time he wrote material for new jrppfc? "was held to come within the scope of tfcje tracts for railway stores. He added that he feared that if permitted to get off supplying iron " they would get pff supplying pipes for Orari waterworks, which it is not likely they can supply at a profit, and Nashelski would get off supplying fire-bricks, and probably seek compensation for those already supplied at a loss of about L 6 per ton.' Mr. Badham (for the Commissioner) then informed t}ie stores manager that "Contractors may be /called upon to supply stores for construction parried out by this department under authorities issued to this office." Eventually, after numerous other refusals from the contractors and threats from the subordinates of the department, the iron was supplied under protest. This is one phase of the matter dealt witii in this correspondence. We shall refer to another in a future issue. But, before dismissing the first portion of the subject, we cannot refrain from offering some remarks on the situation as it presents itself to us. The objection of Messrs. Guthrie and Larnach was consequent upon a rise in the price of iron. This, we *«!«>- it, is & circumstance that should not have affected ifceir action in regard to their contract in the degree. Had iron fallen in price, Messrs. {j.uthrie and Larnach would not have made a corresponding reduction in the amount ox their tender. We cannot help saying that, juader .the circumstances, the Commissioner was guilty of singularly weakkneed conduct, ffe should have taken the bull by "the born? firpm the first, and delivered his based upon consideration for tie depart ment of which he is a chief. Instead of this, he adopted a vacillating policy I that may lay him open to a charge of having sympathised with a powerful firm, whose principles are old friends and patrons. We do not cherish such an idea for one moment, but merely : point out the risk that the Commissioner runs by reason of bis indecision. (